We're all screwed now.

[Mr. Fechter]

News from The Associated Press

[Doug Sainlar]

We're screwed either way.

Give BO his way, well, your post shows what many people believe to be an issue of freedom.

Me, on the other hand, I am tired of paying for health care for those irresponsible individuals who refuse to carry insurance. They are still entitled to basic health care services even if they don't pay...and if they don't pay, you and I and all the individuals who use the health care system share the burden of paying for those who can't (or, won't).

I don't care who is in the White House, which party rules which legislative branch, I just don't want to have to pay for health care services for those individuals who are not responsible enough to carry their own insurance.

I have no vested interest in the Obamacare plan...carry my own insurance and think I'll be OK whichever way this plays out...if we can figure out a way to make those irresponsible users of this expensive service pay for their own care, bring it on...just get me out from under the responsibility for paying for health care for those who refuse to fund our system, and, in many cases, have come to the U.S. to work the system. I've seen it SO many times!!

Like I mentioned above, for all of us it is an issue of freedom...my issue is I would like to be free from the financial burden of helping pay for the irresponsibilities of the few...

Cheers!!

Doug

[Pat]

Doug, unfortunately according to the solicitor general Verrilli in his arguments to the court, for many—including people eligible for Medicaid who don’t sign up for minimum essential coverage (MEC) and people whose health care expenses exceed 8 percent of their income—the Obamacare mandate is not in force and they pay no penalty (or a tax) for refusing to get insurance. They are not required to pay it, period.
So under Obamacare, these people can continue to receive free health care care, not sign up for health insurance, not sign up for Medicaid, and not pay a penalty. The deficit also climbes another $340B. Not only are we still paying, we're paying a lot more.

Also remember that approximately 1,200 companies have also been granted compliance exceptions.

[Mr. Fechter]

And now, employers will be able to opt to pay the $750 fine instead of thousands for the company plan, dumping everything on the government to pay.

[Doug Sainlar]

Yeah, Veek, I heard about the no penalty provision. I thought it was going to be a penalty on their IRS return....collected that way.

Another unfunded mandate????

I agree, we gotta find some way to make these ne'er-do-wells pay as they go...as long as we MAKE them pay, somehow...so that we who support the system don't have to pick up their share.

I can't imagine the court can say they can't be forced to have insurance. We already have a forced system in place, just for automobile liability, not for health, but the same concept applies, IMHO....if you want to take advantage of an automobile you have to cover yourself for a minimum amount of liability, why can't we make them insure themselves for a minimum amount of health care liability, too? The precedent is already there....we just have to make that leap...or is it a first step???

Cheers!

Doug

[Doug Sainlar]

Originally Posted by lonesomebob

And now, employers will be able to opt to pay the $750 fine instead of thousands for the company plan, dumping everything on the government to pay.

Not sure it IS the government that pays, Bob...maybe, it just doesn't feel like it to the average Joe (or, Doug) who uses his health insurance once a year for a physical and has to take no Rx...I pay about $200/month for insurance, get maybe $150 worth of benefits every year for the physical...that leaves about $2350 of my premium to pay for administrative costs and for...yes, you got it, for the services others won't pay for.

Sure looks to me like I am getting screwed.

I would like it if the government would set up a tiered health care system, a neighborhood walk-in clinic for those who have no insurance with minimal services, perhaps immunizations and that sort of thing that have great impact on societal health in general...but with the provision that those who have no insurance are guided into services paid for by philanthropic organizations/individuals...or have to go without advanced services altogether.

Sorta hard lined, I know, but if we're going to cover every loser and leech out there, let's make sure we triage them to make sure they REALLY need care and then if society wants to pay for their treatment we can pursue philanthropic donations....after all, if we can contribute >$500,000 to a school bus aide who was taunted by junior high kids, SURELY someone out there would rather their donations were going to an "equally" worthy cause.

Romney said he didn't care about the poor in an early gaffe...I know what he meant, saw the entire exchange. His comment was meant to say that there are safety nets for the poor, ways they get taken care of when they can't afford the care they need....not that he just didn't care about poor people. I think his logical extension was a bit of a reach...that the rich didn't have any of those safety nets, so that was the group about whom he WAS worried (no surprise there).

When is somebody going to start worrying about the middle class (although I must admit I may aspire to have enough income to be middle class as that distinction receeds into the distance for someone like me on a fixed income)????

Cheers!

Doug

[Doug Sainlar]

I just read something about Romney's position that I like....might be a surprise to some of the conservative crowd on here, but here it is:

Romney wants to give the same tax break to people who have to buy insurance under the Obamacare plan as others get when they buy their insurance through their employers...the $$ they spend for health insurance are "pre-tax" and are not figured in net taxable income.

How about we do this...combine the best ideas of Obamacare and Romneycare...we give those who DO make the decision to get health care under the new law that the SCOTUS just validated the tax break suggested by Romney, and to the ones who DO NOT choose to get insurance, figuring their bills will be paid by all of us responsible citizens, we extend the "tax" that the Supreme Court just approved.

If we hit them double that way, with the irresponsible NOT getting the Romney income tax break and still getting hit by the Obama penalty/tax, maybe we can just ramp up the cost for not getting the coverage to the level that even more will get their own insurance, instead of having to use mine and yours and yours and yours....ad infinitum.

It's clutching at straws, but I see advantages to both approaches.

What say you, conservative members....is it just TOO MUCH to consider any of Obama's ideas, or would this be acceptable?

Cheers!

Doug

[Ian K]

I am curious where the $750 fine comes from. According to this link, that isn't the fine.

The Employer Mandate | ObamaCare Watch

Ian

[Mr. Fechter]

Half Of The States Don't Want To Deal With The Burdens And Costs Of ObamaCare - Investors.com